If I understand it correctly the anthropic principle states that the Universe is fine tuned for life because otherwise we would not be here asking why the Universe is finely tuned.
It is true that we would not be here if fine tuning was out of sync with life, but that doesn’t mean that that is the cause of the fine tuning.
If the Universe conisted of many ‘smaller universe’ it would makes sense that life would only exist in a universe where the laws and constants are finely tuned, that however does not prove that there are more than one universe, therefore (if no evidence for a Multiverse exists) the anthropic principle is wrong.
Also there is no need to explain any supposed fine tuning of the Universe. It is what it is and that’s all we need to know.
If life exists, then the universe is where life exists. Can’t argue with that. On the other hand, if it were all that finely tuned you’d have to wonder why every organism eventually dies.
“More than one universe” is a contradiction in terms, unless these people are working from a private definition that they haven’t shared with us.
If life exists, then the universe is where life exists. Can’t argue with that. On the other hand, if it were all that finely tuned you’d have to wonder why every organism eventually dies.
“More than one universe” is a contradiction in terms, unless these people are working from a private definition that they haven’t shared with us.
The wiki article gives two versions, the strong and the weak anthropic principle. The distinction is basically that the SAP is wish fulfillment (consciousness creates the universe, or at least makes it be the particular form it has) and the WAP is selection bias. WAP is better, but it is not even necessarily true that there was a process of selection.
The process of evolution and adaption is what makes life well suited to its environment. I think where life is possible at all life will seem to be good (given long time scales so adaptation can happen). Life is valuing, and it must be successful valuing if it continues for generation after generation.
If I understand it correctly the anthropic principle states that the Universe is fine tuned for life because otherwise we would not be here asking why the Universe is finely tuned.
Do you think that it would be more likely for life to be fine tuned by the universe?
There is no tuning, fine or coarse, existence exists. Tuning would suggest either a purpose or an alternative.
“Tuning” can also indicate a simple physical chain of causation. That we are alive in this particular form does fit the specific prexisting physical condition of liquid water extremely well.
“Tuning” can also indicate a simple physical chain of causation. That we are alive in this particular form does fit the specific prexisting physical condition of liquid water extremely well.
No tuning implies a ‘conscious’ choice between alternatives.
A thermostat - furnace system will tune the ambient temperature to oscillate gently around its set point. No consciousness is necessary.
All that is required is a negative-feedback regulating function.
For a thermosat to function no consciousness is necessary? Given the full context of reality , for a thermostat to function no consciousness is necessary?
I should have used a comma " No, tuning implies…"?
That’s a relief, Tad… didn’t think you had come over to the dark side.
Using the same example… tuning is not necessarily conscious. It can be something as unconscious as a physical law governing harmoniously resonating frequencies.
Asking how a brain came to be is a valid question,yes? But theorizing why is invalid, yes(too)?
Theorizing how human brains came to be so complex (ie: evolved from a more primitive form) is not invalid at all. See wiki’s entry on the human brain or on the evolution of human intelligence.
Do you think that it would be more likely for life to be fine tuned by the universe?
The universe isn’t a conscious entity capable of tuning, or making adjustments wherever necessary. def universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole
